Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

[CKY2K]

Let them live together and keep their buisness to themselves. Leave others alone and quit b*tching. This entire thread is all about personal ethics really... I think if they wern't so flamboyant then people would not feel so disgusted about the whole subject. All the regular gay people ive met I usually have thought were cool. While the faggy steriotypical ones I have not. Im sorry if this offends but I have no respect for a man who runs around with a dildo, dances around in a thong and acts more inmature than a 16 year old girl...

Whiteshark the theory I was trying to get at was : Anyone can be use the Its freedom argument no matter who you are. And it comes to a point where it's just downright annoying and disrespectful to others. And by the way who cares how I debate? Im not trying to change oppinions. What are you trying to say? I don't think anything here needs to go personnal...



P.S. Saquist I agree.

[homo sine domino]

Originally Posted by Saquist

My definition of Minority is racial. In all political sense it is. Gay and Lesbian is Life Style...and their are all types of life style...

A minority is a minority, whether it be racial or not.

Originally Posted by Saquist

When we're dealing with such incredibly important issues such as race and genocide Gay and Lesbians are trying to make their own corner of politics for what?

So they are the bad ones in this game?

Originally Posted by Saquist

Alimony? Spousal Support?

I don't get it... Women were underpaid for generations and all of a sudden becaise she's suffered wrong you desrve it too?

THAT is a fallacy!
Not to mention a perversion of justise to women and blacks and every other true minority.

Red Herring

Originally Posted by Saquist

All this for money? Unbelievable...

Please explain how a gay marriage differs from a straight marriage.

Oh.. right. A straight couple may "produce" kids? As I asked two times already, what about if one or both are infertile? Should they be denied marriage?

Originally Posted by CKY2K

Let them live together and keep their buisness to themselves. Leave others alone and quit b*tching. This entire thread is all about personal ethics really... I think if they wern't so flamboyant then people would not feel so disgusted about the whole subject. All the regular gay people ive met I usually have thought were cool. While the faggy steriotypical ones I have not. Im sorry if this offends but I have no respect for a man who runs around with a dildo, dances around in a thong and acts more inmature than a 16 year old girl...

Neither do I, there's alot more things/people I do not have respect for.

Originally Posted by CKY2K

Whiteshark the theory I was trying to get at was : Anyone can be use the Its freedom argument no matter who you are.

I never wanted to justify big dildos being shown at a demonstration. In my humble opinion every person should have the same rights. If a straight male is allowed to marry, so should a gay male be allowed. And if it's forbidden for a straight male to run around with a dildo, so should it be forbidden for gays.

Originally Posted by CKY2K

And it comes to a point where it's just downright annoying and disrespectful to others. And by the way who cares how I debate? Im not trying to change oppinions. What are you trying to say? I don't think anything here needs to go personnal.

I agree. In case you are accusing me of going personal, I didn't.

After all, someone did compare gays to pedophiles in this thread. And you must agree, you did ridicule my claim.

[Safe-Keeper]

In reply to the argument that "homosexual marriage destroys the sancity of marriage", I present research of Scandinavian nations permitting gay marriage by William Eskridge and Darren Spedale. Wall Street Journal cites them reporting that:

Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal

Seventeen years after recognizing same-sex relationships in Scandinavia there are higher marriage rates for heterosexuals, lower divorce rates, lower rates for out-of-wedlock births, lower STD rates, more stable and durable gay relationships, more monogamy among gay couples, and so far no slippery slope to polygamy, incestuous marriages, or "man-on-dog" unions.

So much for marriage going to Hell. Whoops. Er, what's that? There's more?

Yup:

Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal

Our research has also uncovered additional social benefits. In dozens of interviews with partnered couples and through other sources, we found that marriage rights had an important beneficial effect not only on the couples themselves, but on their local and national communities as well. Couples reported that their relationships were stronger and more durable, that relationships with family members had deepened, that co-workers had become more tolerant and supportive, and their children felt greater validation by having married parents. Many couples reported a greater emphasis on monogamy, which may be reflected by the fact that national rates of HIV and STD infections declined in each of the Scandinavian countries in the years after they passed their partnership laws.

Of course, most of us already knew that there's no way making marriage more inclusive would somehow harm it, but either way, now it's been scientifically proven.

Source (I won't say it's a splendid post, 'cause then the fanatics won't read it, but it is).

[CKY2K]

Originally Posted by WhiteShark

A minority is a minority, whether it be racial or not.
So they are the bad ones in this game?Red Herring Please explain how a gay marriage differs from a straight marriage.

Oh.. right. A straight couple may "produce" kids? As I asked two times already, what about if one or both are infertile? Should they be denied marriage?Neither do I, there's alot more things/people I do not have respect for.

I never wanted to justify big dildos being shown at a demonstration. In my humble opinion every person should have the same rights. If a straight male is allowed to marry, so should a gay male be allowed. And if it's forbidden for a straight male to run around with a dildo, so should it be forbidden for gays.
I agree. In case you are accusing me of going personal, I didn't.

After all, someone did compare gays to pedophiles in this thread. And you must agree, you did ridicule my claim.

Well I apoligize fo any misunderstandings. I guess it's easier to hear a voice than read typing. You really can't hear the tone its meant in if you get what I mean. I really diddn't mean to ridicule you and I appoligize. And I already stated by using the word perverts I did not mean pedophiles.

[homo sine domino]

Originally Posted by CKY2K

Well I apoligize fo any misunderstandings. I guess it's easier to hear a voice than read typing. You really can't hear the tone its meant in if you get what I mean. I really diddn't mean to ridicule you and I appoligize. And I already stated by using the word perverts I did not mean pedophiles.

I apologize as well, my post had as always in such situations a slight aggressive taste.

Although I must say, this post of yours could be interpreted to have a touch of sarcasm.

[CKY2K]

Originally Posted by WhiteShark

I apologize as well, my post had as always in such situations a slight aggressive taste.

Although I must say, this post of yours could be interpreted to have a touch of sarcasm.

No sarcasm intended.

[Joe Bonham]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

In reply to the argument that "homosexual marriage destroys the sancity of marriage", I present research of Scandinavian nations permitting gay marriage by William Eskridge and Darren Spedale. Wall Street Journal cites them reporting that:So much for marriage going to Hell. Whoops. Er, what's that? There's more?

Post hoc fallacy. The Titanic was sunk two years before WWI, therefore the sinking of the Titanic caused WWI.

Yup:Of course, most of us already knew that there's no way making marriage more inclusive would somehow harm it, but either way, now it's been scientifically proven.

Good to know that these incidents have been "scientifically proven" to have never happened.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...050339590.html

Source (I won't say it's a splendid post, 'cause then the fanatics won't read it, but it is).

Riiiight.

[Dursk]

So they are the bad ones in this game?

What do you think? Is greed and oportunism what you think of when you think of Freedom and Fairness...all the things you purport to stand for?

Red Herring

No...It's the entire issue: You're just caught up in the "righteous fairness" the movement is publizing. You're not willing to look any deeper than "Speedo Deep"

Please explain how a gay marriage differs from a straight marriage.

Marriage is Man and Woman. It is fundamentally a religous institution.
And if you were trying to steer away from the minimalizing of REAL Minorities...Women are STILL underpaid and discriminated against.
With the Cost of living rising and the job market biased against women at least to a marginal degree in pay and opportunity.....The State Has morally sided with women...In most cases to a fault.

Oh.. right. A straight couple may "produce" kids? As I asked two times already, what about if one or both are infertile? Should they be denied marriage?

I'm so sick of that stupid argument... Honestly, this is the most retarded reasoning on the face of the blue green Earth. Marriage may be about a propper place to raise kids but it does NOT equate to compare a GAy Union to a Marriage.

And that's not to you Whiteshark that to everyone who uses the Productive family idea of why Gay Marriages are wrong.

A Gay family will Never Produce Children.
Any Children a Gay Union may have will be from previous encounters or Adopted.
While it's certainly a service to society to adopt children the damage (if any, and often is) is done. Adopted children are extremely difficult to mold.
A Marriage is the ideal place to begin a family, No not to just pic up where someone left off.

Quite Frankly since the instution of Marriage was dawned by God and continued through religious institution the definition is clear.

It does not preven Gay from creating their own form of Bonding...A justice of the Peace...A life time friendship ring...Make something up but chopping up the laws of another culture to suit your own purposes is pathetic...

It's not same...stop trying to be a woman...If you want Alimony go get a sex change...at least then we really get the idea of how far gone you are and maybe you really do need government endorsement.

[beef flaps]

Originally Posted by Saquist

I'm so sick of that stupid argument... Honestly, this is the most retarded reasoning on the face of the blue green Earth. Marriage may be about a propper place to raise kids but it does NOT equate to compare a GAy Union to a Marriage.

And that's not to you Whiteshark that to everyone who uses the Productive family idea of why Gay Marriages are wrong.

A Gay family will Never Produce Children.
Any Children a Gay Union may have will be from previous encounters or Adopted.
While it's certainly a service to society to adopt children the damage (if any, and often is) is done. Adopted children are extremely difficult to mold.
A Marriage is the ideal place to begin a family, No not to just pic up where someone left off.

Quite Frankly since the instution of Marriage was dawned by God and continued through religious institution the definition is clear.

It does not preven Gay from creating their own form of Bonding...A justice of the Peace...A life time friendship ring...Make something up but chopping up the laws of another culture to suit your own purposes is pathetic...

It's not same...stop trying to be a woman...If you want Alimony go get a sex change...at least then we really get the idea of how far gone you are and maybe you really do need government endorsement.

Saquist, I love you! and in a manly way so don't get any ideas fool.

[homo sine domino]

Originally Posted by Saquist

No...It's the entire issue: You're just caught up in the "righteous fairness" the movement is publizing. You're not willing to look any deeper than "Speedo Deep"


Marriage is Man and Woman. It is fundamentally a religous institution.
And if you were trying to steer away from the minimalizing of REAL Minorities...Women are STILL underpaid and discriminated against.
With the Cost of living rising and the job market biased against women at least to a marginal degree in pay and opportunity.....The State Has morally sided with women...In most cases to a fault.

Blah blah blah. As I said, Red Herring.

And please, stop accusing me of this and that, just because I see it as totally irrelevant to this debate.

Originally Posted by Saquist

It's not same...stop trying to be a woman...If you want Alimony go get a sex change...at least then we really get the idea of how far gone you are and maybe you really do need government endorsement.

I'm not gay. If you are so willing to prove that argument, why don't you go have a sex change?